Linneen v. Gila River Indian Community, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | William A. Fletcher |
| Citation | 276 F.3d 489 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2002) ROSS B. LINNEEN, HUSBAND; KIM ANN LINNEEN, WIFE,, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; MARY THOMAS, GOVERNOR OF THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; RALPH ANDREWS, GILA RIVER TRIBAL RANGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; UNITED STATESOF AMERICA; INTERIOR, DEPARTMENTOF; BUDDY SHAPP, BIA OFFICER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIAN AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF, |
| Docket Number | No. 00-15120,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS |
| Decision Date | 07 January 2002 |
Page 489
v.
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; MARY THOMAS, GOVERNOR OF THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; RALPH ANDREWS, GILA RIVER TRIBAL RANGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; UNITED STATESOF AMERICA; INTERIOR, DEPARTMENTOF; BUDDY SHAPP, BIA OFFICER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIAN AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Filed January 7, 2002
Page 490
Counsel James P. Mueller, Douglas V. Drury, Mueller & Drury, Scottsdale, Arizona, Tom Rawles, Linda S. Rawles, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Scott H. Gan, Tom R. Clark, Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, Tucson, Arizona, Robert Alan Hershey, Tucson, Arizona, Arthur G. Garcia, Ausa, Phoenix, Arizona, for the defendants-appelles.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roger
Page 491
G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-97-02708-RGS
Before: Henry A. Politz,* William A. Fletcher, and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges
Plaintiffs Ross and Kim Linneen filed a complaint in district court seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C.§§ 1983, the United States Constitution, Arizona state law, and the bylaws of the Gila River Indian Community, based on allegations that a Gila ranger unlawfully detained and threatened them during an encounter on Gila land. The district court dismissed the complaint as to the Gila River Indian Community, and as to Mary Thomas, Governor of the Community, and Ralph Andrews, Gila River Tribal Ranger, in their official capacities, based on tribal sovereign immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and affirm.
I.
The Linneens drove into the desert south of Chandler, Arizona on January 1, 1996, to take their dogs for a walk. The location they chose was on property belonging to the Gila River Indian Community ("Community"). Buddy Shapp of the Bureau of Indian Affairs spotted them, and Ralph Andrews, a ranger for the Community, was dispatched to investigate.
The Linneens allege that the following events took place: When Andrews arrived, he jumped out of his truck, drew his gun, and crouched behind the truck door. He ordered Ross to turn around and put his arms on his head. He searched the Linneens and their car. He kept the Linneens in custody for three hours, during which time he told them that they were guilty of various offenses that would result in jail time; told them that their possessions would be impounded and their dogs destroyed; held a gun to their heads; complained about injustices suffered by Native Americans at the hands of Caucasians; and lectured them on religious doctrine. Andrews finally released the Linneens after citing them for criminal trespass. The charges against the Linneens were later dismissed.
The Linneens filed a complaint in federal district court, naming as defendants the Gila Community, Mary Thomas, Andrews, the United States, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Shapp. The complaint alleged six federal and state law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority, No. 04-35210.
...immunity are also reviewed de novo. See Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.2004); Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is likewise reviewed de novo. See Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595......
-
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Becerra, No. 1:18-cv-00958-DAD-EPG
...(1982) (distinguishing between tribe's "role as a commercial partner" and its "role as sovereign"); Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty. , 276 F.3d 489, 492–93 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Most courts that have considered the issue have recognized the distinctness of these two entities.") (citing Ramey ......
-
Maxwell v. Cnty. of San Diego, Nos. 10–56671
...court's determination that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of tribal sovereign immunity. Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002).III We begin with the district court's denial of summary judgment to the Sheriff's officers on the ground of qualified i......
-
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Bonta, No. 19-16777
...for its business operations without having to waive that immunity for nonbusiness liability. Cf. Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty. , 276 F.3d 489, 493 (2002) (explaining that a waiver of immunity from suit in a tribe's "corporate charter in no way affects the sovereign immunity of the [tri......
-
Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority, 04-35210.
...immunity are also reviewed de novo. See Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.2004); Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is likewise reviewed de novo. See Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595......
-
American Vantage v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 00-17355.
...We review de novo both the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002), and questions of statutory interpretation. Alexander v. Glickman, 139 F.3d 733, 735 (9th I. Diversity Jurisdiction A. We m......
-
Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming, 2 CA-CV 2005-0129.
...of sovereign immunity applies to divest the Arizona courts of jurisdiction over Filer's claims. Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002); see also Mitchell v. Gamble, 207 Ariz. 364, ¶ 6, 86 P.3d 944, 947 (App. 2004) (order dismissing case for lack of subject matt......
-
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Bonta, 19-16777
...for its business operations without having to waive that immunity for nonbusiness liability. Cf. Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty. , 276 F.3d 489, 493 (2002) (explaining that a waiver of immunity from suit in a tribe's "corporate charter in no way affects the sovereign immunity of the [tri......